Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT*

232 ITR 2Supreme Court of India1998#7124 most cited
16

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2011 to 2026.

Sections most often in play

Section 106Section 143(3)Section 23(1)

Judgments citing Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT*

ARCHNA CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 52(1), NEW DELHI

ITA 2841/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaarchna Chadha Vs. Acit, Circle 52(1) Office No. 8, First Floor, Civic Centre, Scindia House, Cannaught Minto Road Place, Delhi – 110001 New Delhi - 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaipm7190F Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Guarav Singhal, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…P a g e | 1 Archna Chadha (AY: 2016-17) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Archna Chadha Vs. ACIT, Circle 52(1) Office No. 8, First Floor, Civic Centre, Scindia House, Cannaught Minto Road Place, Delhi – 110001 New Delhi - 110002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: AAIPM7190F Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Guarav Singhal, Adv. Respondent by : Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 O R D E R PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred…

ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S AMRUT ENTERPRISES , MUMBAI

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1215/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2Nd Flr, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan Bkc Road, Vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. Jcit 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No. 502, 5Th Flr, Pratyakshar बिधम/ Dasrathlal Road, Vile Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Parle(W), Mumbai-400051 Vs. Mumbai- 400056 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. S Khandelwal & Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.Ar. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ 04.10.2022 : Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 02.01.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri R. S Khandelwal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

…another hand, the Ld. Counsel, for the Assessee submitted that, the observation of the Hon‟ble High Court, has not been approved by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on the issue in hand. The issue before the, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of, P. Mariappa Gounder 232 ITR 2, was only year of taxability and not the issue whether mesne profit is taxable or not? Although, the point of reference before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in P. Mariappa Gounder case was following; "(1) Whether mesne profits, decreed by a court of law, can be held to be taxable income in the hands of the decree holder? (2) The other question is…

AMRUT ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 25(2) , MUMBAI

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1018/MUM/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2Nd Flr, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan Bkc Road, Vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. Jcit 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No. 502, 5Th Flr, Pratyakshar बिधम/ Dasrathlal Road, Vile Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Parle(W), Mumbai-400051 Vs. Mumbai- 400056 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. S Khandelwal & Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.Ar. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ 04.10.2022 : Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 02.01.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri R. S Khandelwal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

…another hand, the Ld. Counsel, for the Assessee submitted that, the observation of the Hon‟ble High Court, has not been approved by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on the issue in hand. The issue before the, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of, P. Mariappa Gounder 232 ITR 2, was only year of taxability and not the issue whether mesne profit is taxable or not? Although, the point of reference before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in P. Mariappa Gounder case was following; "(1) Whether mesne profits, decreed by a court of law, can be held to be taxable income in the hands of the decree holder? (2) The other question is…

AMRUT ENTERPRISES ,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 25(2), MUMBAI

Appeal of the Assessee is allowed and revenue appeal is dismissed

ITA 1017/MUM/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1215/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Acit 25(2) Mumbai. Amrut Enterprises. Room No. 220, 2Nd Flr, 203, Avon Arcade, Dasrathlal बिधम/ Kautilya Bhavan Bkc Road, Vile Parle(W), Vs. Bandra(E), Mumbai- Mumbai- 400056 400051 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.1017 & 1018/Mum/2020 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Amrut Enterprises. Jcit 25(2), Mumbai. Room 203, Avon Arcade, No. 502, 5Th Flr, Pratyakshar बिधम/ Dasrathlal Road, Vile Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra(E), Parle(W), Mumbai-400051 Vs. Mumbai- 400056 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No Aaofa3252E (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri R. S Khandelwal & Shri Nilkanth Khandelwal प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.Ar. सुनवाईकीतारीख/ 04.10.2022 : Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / 02.01.2023 : Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla:

For Appellant: Shri R. S Khandelwal & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Sonha, Sr.AR
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 24

…another hand, the Ld. Counsel, for the Assessee submitted that, the observation of the Hon‟ble High Court, has not been approved by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on the issue in hand. The issue before the, Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of, P. Mariappa Gounder 232 ITR 2, was only year of taxability and not the issue whether mesne profit is taxable or not? Although, the point of reference before the Hon’ble Madras High Court in P. Mariappa Gounder case was following; "(1) Whether mesne profits, decreed by a court of law, can be held to be taxable income in the hands of the decree holder? (2) The other question is…

TRANS FREIGHT CONTAINERS LTD.,MUMBAI vs. DCIT , CIRCLE- 3 (3)(2), MUMBAI

Accordingly, the ground No.1 received by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3262/MUM/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M.Balaganesh, Am & Shri Ram Lal Negi, Jm M/S. Trans Freight Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Containers Ltd., Income Tax, 72-73, Nariman Bhavan Circle 3(3)(2), Room Nariman Point No.609, Aayakar Bhavan Mumbai – 400 021 M.K.Road Mumbai – 400 020 Pan/Gir No. Aaact1447P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By Shri Amit Pratap Singh Date Of Hearing 18/11/2019 Date Of Pronouncement 07/02/2020

Section 143(3)

…rt and the only issue that was contended before the Hon‟ble Apex Court was of the year of taxability of mesne profits. Accordingly, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court had decided on the year of taxability of mesne profits in the case of P. Mariappa Gounder reported in 232 ITR 2 vide order dated 21/01/1998. With regard to the decision relied on the Mumbai Tribunal by the assessee in the case of CIT vs. Goodwill Theaters Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 8185/Mum/2011 dated 19/06/2013, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the said decision was affirmed by the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court. The relevant operative portion of the Hon‟ble Bombay High C…

SIGFRIEDE INFOTECH P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ITO 10(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result the grounds of the appeal

ITA 7545/MUM/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Pawan Singhm/S Sigfriede Infotech Pvt. Ito-10(3)(3) Ltd. (Formerly Known As Aayakar Bhavan, Techstar Infotech (India) Pvt. Vs. M.K. Road, Ltd.) 156, Bhandup Village Mumbai-400020. Road, Next To Wmi Cranes Road, Bhandup, West Mumbai-400068. Pan: Aabct7637C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kushandwala-(Ar) Respondent By : Shri Sachchidanand Dube (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 Order Under Section 254(1)Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh; 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)-22 Mumbai, Dated 15Th Of October 2013 Which In Turn Arises From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) On 12Th November

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta &For Respondent: Shri Sachchidanand Dube (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 254(1)

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s Sigfriede Infotech Pvt. ITO-10(3)(3) Ltd. (formerly known as Aayakar Bhavan, Techstar Infotech (India) Pvt. Vs. M.K. Road, Ltd.) 156, Bhandup Village Mumbai-400020. Road, Next to WMI Cranes Road, Bhandup, West Mumbai-400068. PAN: AABCT7637C Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Shri Vijay Mehta & Anuj Kushandwala-(AR) Respondent by : Shri Sachchidanand Dube (DR) Date of Hearing : 30.04.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1)OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAW…

SETH PROPERTIES,MUMBAI vs. ITO 12(1)(3), MUMBAI

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 2991/MUM/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunatha

…Appeal), the submissions of the assessee were considered and the First Appellate Authority discussed the decision from Hon'ble Madas High Court in CIT vs P. Mariappa Gounder (1983) 147 ITR 676 (Mad.), Hon'ble Apex Court in P. Mariappaa Gounder vs CIT (1998) 232 ITR 2(SC), Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs Oberoi Sons (Machined Ltd.(Appeal Nos.166,168,243 and 778 of 2006 dated 31/08/2012 and also the decision in Narang Overseas Pvt. Ltd. of the Tribunal and thereafter held that the amount so the assessee. The assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. 3.3. We have considered the rival submissions…

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI,XI & ANR.

The appeal is allowed but, in the circumstances, with no order as to

ITA/161/2016HC Delhi19 Apr 2017

Bench: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR

Section 260ASection 5

…y was payable. The contention was that even if the Board did not raise a demand as a result of the stay order, the obligation of the consumers to pay the charges at the enhanced rate would be relieved. 22. In Central India Electric Supply Company v. CIT 247 ITR 54 (SC), it was explained that the amount payable under an arbitral Award became due when the Award was made rule of the Court within the previous year relevant to the AY in which it was made. 23. In the present case, with the Award having been made rule of the Court by a learned Single Judge of this Court, the mere fact that the said judgmen…

DCIT CEN CIR 29, MUMBAI vs. YASH RAJ FILMS P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 3345/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra -DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “जी जी” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई जी जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2597/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. ACIT-Central Circle-29 5 Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Rd. Mumbai. Vs. Andheri (West),Mumbai-400 053. PAN:AAACY 1176 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Responde…

YASH RAJ FILMS PVT. LTD.,MUMBAI vs. A.C.I.T. CENTRAL CIRCLE 29, MUMBAI

ITA 2597/MUM/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2017AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Porus Kaka-ARFor Respondent: Ms. Vidisha Kalra -DR
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, मुंबई मुंबई “जी जी” खंडपीठ खंडपीठ आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई जी जी खंडपीठ खंडपीठ Income-tax Appellate Tribunal -“G”Bench Mumbai सव"ी राजे"",लेखा सद"य एवं अमरजीत "सह, "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh.Rajendra,Accountant Member and Amarjit Singh,Judicial Member िनधा"रण वष" वष" /Assessment Year: 2007-08 आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A./2597/Mum/2012,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" M/s. Yash Raj Films Pvt. Ltd. ACIT-Central Circle-29 5 Shah Industrial Estate, Veera Desai Rd. Mumbai. Vs. Andheri (West),Mumbai-400 053. PAN:AAACY 1176 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Responde…

DIVINE HOLDINGS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 31, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2006–07, 2008–

ITA 104/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Rajesh Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta a/wFor Respondent: Dr. P. Daniel
Section 115JSection 143(3)

…ke the payment has arisen, even if for a later date, there is accrual of income or, as the case may be, expenditure. Reference in this context may also be made to its decisions in K.C.P. Ltd. vs. CIT [2000] 245 ITR 421 (SC); P. Mariappa Gounder vs. CIT [1998] 232 ITR 2 (SC); CIT v. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Ltd. [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC); and CIT vs. Shoorji Vallabhdas & Co. [1962] 46 ITR 144 (SC). 3.3 In the facts of the instant case, a part of the money on which interest is being claimed is by way of borrowed capital while the balance represents the unpaid purchase price of shares. The parties…

DCIT, BANGALORE vs. M/S BIG BAGS INERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1041/BANG/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raodeputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(2), Bangalore. … Appellant Vs. M/S.Big Bags International Pvt. Ltd. No.61, Nadakerappa Industrial Estate, Viswadeepam Post, Peenya, … Respondent Bangalore-560091. Pan:Aabcb 4004 D

For Appellant: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)For Respondent: Shri S.V.Ravishankar, Advocate
Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)

…IT vs. Kerala State Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd.(192 ITR 1)(Ker); iii. CIT vs. Rehmat Khan (213 ITR 134)(Raj); iv. CIT vs. Sikaria Sons & Co. (216 ITR 440)(Gauhati); v. Godhra Electricity Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (225 ITR 746)(SC); and vi. P.Mariappa Gounder vs. CIT (232 ITR 2)(SC) Thus, going by the submissions of the respondent-assessee- company, there was never any debt/debts. A bad debt pre- supposes the existence of a debt and therefore, the provisions of sec.36(1)(vii) are not applicable to the facts of this case. In such cases, question of invoking provisions of sec.36(1)(vii) of the Act does not arise. We place…

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERAGIN OF INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XI & ANR.

ITA/1096/2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA

…the date of realisation accrued only on 28th January, 2000, when the High Court passed the order making the award rule of the court. Learned counsel placed reliance on Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT, 247 ITR 54 (SC); P. Mariyappa Gonder v. CIT, 232 ITR 2 (SC); CIT V. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Limited, (1986) 161 ITR 524; Paragon Constructions (I) (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr., 274 ITR 413 (Delhi) and N. Sundareswaran v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 226 ITR 142 (Kerala). 6. The case of Rama Bai (supra) related to interest on enhanced compensation payab…

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI & ANR.

ITA - 1146 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011

…the date of realisation accrued only on 28th January, 2000, when the High Court passed the order making the award rule of the court. Learned counsel placed reliance on *Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT*, 247 ITR 54 (SC); *P. Mariyappa Gonder v. CIT*, 232 ITR 2 (SC); *CIT V. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Limited*, (1986) 161 ITR 524; *Paragon Constructions (I)* (*P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.*, 274 ITR 413 (Delhi) and *N. Sundareswaran v. Commissioner of Income-tax*, 226 ITR 142 (Kerala). - 6. The case of *Rama Bai* (supra) related to interest on enhanced compensation payab…

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION OF INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XI & ANR.

ITA - 1138 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011

…the date of realisation accrued only on 28th January, 2000, when the High Court passed the order making the award rule of the court. Learned counsel placed reliance on *Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT*, 247 ITR 54 (SC); *P. Mariyappa Gonder v. CIT*, 232 ITR 2 (SC); *CIT V. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Limited*, (1986) 161 ITR 524; *Paragon Constructions (I)* (*P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.*, 274 ITR 413 (Delhi) and *N. Sundareswaran v. Commissioner of Income-tax*, 226 ITR 142 (Kerala). - 6. The case of *Rama Bai* (supra) related to interest on enhanced compensation payab…

NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERAGIN OF INDIA LTD. vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI XI & ANR.

ITA - 1096 / 2008HC Delhi03 Jun 2011

…the date of realisation accrued only on 28th January, 2000, when the High Court passed the order making the award rule of the court. Learned counsel placed reliance on Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT, 247 ITR 54 (SC); P. Mariyappa Gonder v. CIT, 232 ITR 2 (SC); CIT V. Hindustan Housing and Land Development Trust Limited, (1986) 161 ITR 524; Paragon Constructions (I) (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr., 274 ITR 413 (Delhi) and N. Sundareswaran v. Commissioner of Income-tax, 226 ITR 142 (Kerala). 6. The case of Rama Bai (supra) related to interest on enhanced compensation payab…

Central India Electric Supply Co. v. CIT* (232 ITR 2) — Cited in 16 Judgments | BharatTax